Comment on Henry Kissinger died.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week agoThey’re not saving, that’s a faulty belief. The majority of them aren’t even liquid
They’re hoarding as frequently mentioned but it’s not about resources, really, it’s about control and power. Power and valuation are linked somewhat, but it takes more than that
Say my company is amazon, as an example. I hoard ownership stake and equity. I do not give workers a share and pay them minimally. I give investors as little as possible and buy back shares whenever I can. I raise the valuation by increasing the worth of company initially through traditional performance means: sell more stuff, productivity, efficiency, etc. but eventually I get so big at this I have to look at how to diversify to increase power. I enter other markets. Now I’m not just a online retail store, I’m a logistics company, I’m a pharmacy, I’m a web host for 50+% of the internet, I’m a key player in media streaming, I’m a smart home device manufacturer, I’m an ebook manufacturer, etc. I have dominance across dozens of markets
By hoarding equity I maintain control of that company to a significant degree. At this point there is likely a board that can override me for the sake of the shareholders who have taken a large portion of my equity but there is no other single person that has my power.
The equity comes with massive resource benefits of course, it’s basically infinite money chest and even if I’m not liquid I can get a loan for infinity dollars at a moments notice because I’m obviously good for it. But the real motivation for hoarding is because if I stop? Even for a second? I lose this power
That’s why they never retire. They only step down and put some weenie ceo in their place who won’t get their full power until they’re decrepit or dead. How many people can name the ceo of amazon now? (It’s Andy jassy, has a 0.02% ownership stake in amazon) but everyone knows bezos (9.6% ownership stake in amazon, 1.023 billion shares). People only knew tim cook because jobs literally knew he was about to die and his ownership stake is minimal (0.021% vs jobs 0.2% at his death). Who can name the CEO of twitter (Linda yaccarino, no ownership)? Musk is still the ceo of tesla (70% stake in twitter, 12.8% tesla). Even with these minimal ownership stakes though these people are filthy rich - jassy and cook both have a net worth well over half a billion from that alone.
toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
the overarching question for me, though, has always been “why”?
i do understand that it’s a question that’s only asked by one who’s never held power, though.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
People respond to power differently. I’m sure you’ve held it at some point. Sure, you’ve never been a captain of industry (I assume) but you’ve probably been asked to watch a child for at least a few moments, or had a pet, or a friendship/romantic relationship where there was an imbalance, if only temporarily
Some people reject that feeling of power for various reasons (avoiding responsibility, the potential to cause harm, etc), some people just are kind of eh about it and see it for what it is (“I will take care of this baby because that is what you are supposed to do”, “I will be a trustworthy partner because that is what is right”, etc), some people realize power is exploitable and gives them potential advantage (I can shape this babies worldview, I can make my friend/partner dependent)
That last category is the type to try and seize more and more power, imo. They will potentially delude themselves with niceties along the way (“I made the baby laugh”, “I did a nice thing for my friend/partner today”, “I have created 800,000 jobs”) but this is always overlooking evil (“my goal is to shape this baby into my worldview rather than allow it to develop its own personality”, “my goal is to manipulate my friend/partner into staying loyal regardless of my behavior”, “the vast majority of the 800,000 jobs I’ve made are exploitative and the empire I’ve built is destructive in many other ways like destroying small businesses that helped create reasonable wealth within communities”)
toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
i don’t disagree with anything you said, but i don’t know if it all really applies when we’re talking about dynasties and bloodlines and heritages and stuff. i’ve worked closely with some of these people, and it’s a different life entirely.
and you’re missing a category. but we don’t talk about that category.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Well even within nepotism and privilege there are people who reject it but there are far more who do not, it seems
That’s where we start to get to the nature vs nurture debate I suppose.